Someone pinged me a message on here asking about how to donate to tackle child sexual abuse. I'm copying my thoughts here.
I haven't done a careful review on this, but here's a few quick comments:
If anyone is interested in this topic and wants to put aside a substantial sum (high 5 digits or six digits) then the next steps would involve a number of conversations to gather more evidence and check whether existing interventions are as lacking in evidence as I suspect. If so, the next step would be work on creating a new charity. It's possible that Charity Entrepreneurship might be interested in this, but I haven't spoken with them about this and I don't know their appetite. I'd be happy to support you on this, mostly because I know that CSA can be utterly horrific (at least some of the time).
You may know this already, but No Means No Worldwide works with children and adolescents. E.g., the mean age of girls in this study is 12.3 years. Founders Pledge evaluated them (see here for a summary and here for a full report) and provisionally recommended them. I don't know if the person is particularly looking into tackling sexual abuse of younger children, but this charity seems worth mentioning as an option.
Thanks very much Saulius.
In SoGive's 2023 plans document, we said
"An investigation of No Means No Worldwide was suggested to us by a member of the EA London community, who was excited to have an EA-aligned recommendation for a charity which prevents sexual violence. We have mostly completed a review of this charity, and were asked not to publish it yet because it used a study which is not yet in the public domain."
That said, part of the reason I didn't allude to NMNW is that my vague memory of the average was older (presumably my vague memory was wrong).
Will everyone code 2-3x more quickly because of AI?
To get a sense of the impact of AI on coding, I conducted a survey of around 100 coders and people working in IT.
Respondents estimated, on average, that code could be developed in around 50% as much time (i.e. twice as quickly) in light of the fact that AI tools like GPT-4 exist. This was just assuming that AI stays as good as it is now. If they incorporated the fact that AI might get better, the estimate moved to almost 3x as good.
Of respondents who said that they were coders, 56% said they had already started using Large Language Models (LLMs) like GPT-4.
There are several reasons to think the 2-3x forecast might not be correct:
I don't know about the extent to which current forecasts of AI timelines are accounting for this effect.
You can scrutinise my work here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I3_0kiwCJKzpuRlc66ytQVSDAXLd8wj2NmYhpZ28m94/edit#gid=990899939
This is a really good piece of input for predictions of how the supply-demand curve for coding will change in the future. 50% increase in time effectively reduces cost of coding by 50%. Depending on the shape of the supply-demand curve for coding, this could lead to high unemployment, or a boom for coders that leads to even higher demand. Note: coding productivity tools developed over the past 40 years have led to ever-increasing demand since so much value is generated :)